Patriotism Poll

[RandFan]

You don't have any proof that A causes B. You simply suppose that it does.

I'm at a loss as to how much clearer I could be.

One does not necassarily cause the other. You are assuming a connection. Can you demonstrate the connection? It's your claim and your responsibility.

I'm waiting.

 

[Earthborn]

Can you demonstrate the connection?

Linky.

 

[Puppycow]

Interesting you bring up Vonnegut here.

I think it was in The Sirens of Titan where the inhabitants of another planet (Tralfamadore, mayhap?) turn their heads away and cover their eyes whenever someone says something embarrassingly stupid.

Anyone have a "covering your eyes" smilie for the following?

A wise person, I can't remember who it was, once said something like this:

Never wrestle a pig. You just get dirty and the pig likes it.

 

[RandFan]

Linky.

Thanks but I'm not sure what it is supposed to prove.

 

[RandFan]

You have defined "post hoc ergo propter hoc". I already understood this latin expression.

Once again, could you explain how my post..

...qualifies?

Thanks.

{sigh}

You make a statement of cause and effect.

Given only two viable sides to choose from, rabid acrimony between people who differ only slightly on views, but who must choose just one of the two possible sides, is inevitable.

Cause: Only two choices.
Effect: Rabid acrimony.

Let Cause = A.
Let Effect = B.

To the extent that there is B (which you haven't even established but fine, lets assume that it exists for the purpose of argument) can you demonstrate that it is caused by A?

Can you demonstrate that there is less acrimony in other systems?

 

[Puppycow]

I suspect it is a side effect of your odd form of democracy. Your system of democracy results in what is effectively a two party system. Given only two viable sides to choose from, rabid acrimony between people who differ only slightly on views, but who must choose just one of the two possible sides, is inevitable.

Maybe that is part of it too. Actually, after reconsidering it, I think it's more a result of human nature and confirmation bias. Once you make any kind of commitment in one direction, you tend to get into a kind of positive reinforcement cycle. This happens even to scientists: Once a scientist develops a certain theory, many tend to stick with it even after evidence points in another direction. The mark of a really good scientist, IMO, is that she is willing to admit that her pet theory is wrong when that's where the eveidence leads.

For example. Once the link between HIV and AIDS was not as clear as it is now. Certain scientists had alternative theories. Amazingly, some still cling to those theories, even a few formerly reputable researchers. This is not unique to America. Once you make a certain commitment to an idea, confirmation bias kicks in, so that you will continue to notice evidence that confirms it, while being less likely to notice that does not confirm it.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I think it was in The Sirens of Titan where the inhabitants of another planet (Tralfamadore, mayhap?) turn their heads away and cover their eyes whenever someone says something embarrassingly stupid.

Slaughterhouse Five, surely?